Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Action vs. inaction (Score 1) 296

"Well, app developer has no obligation to Blackberry. But it does have an obligation to its purchasers to provide access to the app. If its customers can't access app because of a deficiency in the app developer architecture and its connections to the mobile OSs, it should be app developer's responsibility to remedy. This is the net neutrality argument, and has generally been the status quo."

Comment: Re:Action vs. inaction (Score 2) 296

Comcast gets Netflix and other traffic from Cogent, and there would be no legal obligation to build out their capacity.

The problem is that whenever saturation issues come up (e.g. ), you get tons of people saying net neutrality does include that sort of obligation.

Comment: Re:Action vs. inaction (Score 1, Insightful) 296

Net Neutrality isn't just inaction anymore. The term has now been expanded to include things like, if the Netflix-Comcast interchange is getting saturated, Comcast has a positive duty build out more capacity to handle the full flow.

The Blackberry guy is now expanding it again. People who work in development and realize what this would mean for small developers are rightly horrified, but the thing is, that's how government regulation works. If net neutrality becomes law, it will end up getting used to cover things that aren't strictly related because it's going to be interpreted by lawyers, legislators, and judges that don't understand technology.

Comment: Re:The Only Way Insurance Company Loses (Score 1) 237

by Stormy Dragon (#48860419) Attached to: Google Thinks the Insurance Industry May Be Ripe For Disruption

It seems like they can only lose if there is a big spike in claims, such as a natural disaster or possibly war/terrorism.

Nope, that's what reinsurance is for:

There's basically a second set of truly massive companies out there that exist to insure the insurance companies you think of from excessive claims.

Comment: Double Speak (Score 1) 872

by Stormy Dragon (#48820991) Attached to: Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression

While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs.

If he supports limits on free speech, then he does think religion can be used to justify violence, as the threat of violence if the only way any such limits can be enforced. Just because the person engaged in the violence has a shiny police badge and permission from the government doesn't make them fundamentally different from the Charlie Hebido attackers.

Comment: Re:Less chance of dangerous quake now (Score 1) 168

Except around extremely large interplate faults, earthquakes are time independent; the chance of there being an earthquake tomorrow depends very little on whether the last earthquake was yesterday or 100 years ago.

As an example, Time-independent and Time-dependent Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California: Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast Model 1.0

In this paper we have presented both time-independent and time-dependent probabilities for several faults and statewide ground motion hazard maps for California that show the value of peak ground acceleration with a 10% probability of exceedance for a time period of 30 years starting in 2006. The timedependent maps differ by about 10% to 15% from the timeindependent maps near A-fault sources (figure 4). However, for most of California, located well away from the time-dependent sources, the ground motions are similar.

If fracking is causing seismic activity on interior faults, you're just getting more earthquakes, not reducing the chances of large future ones.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.